This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The case Inyo County v. Paiute‑Shoshone Indians was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on March 31, 2003.
According to Petitioners, the petitioners seek a rule that would make the tribe, its casinos, businesses, and personal property immune from search warrants and subpoenas in criminal investigations.
According to Reid Peyton Chambers, the tribe argues that tribal sovereign immunity, the principle that states may not infringe tribal self‑government, and the lack of a congressional authorization bar the warrant.
According to United States (Amicus Curiae), the United States amicus brief states there is no federal regulation preventing the county or the State from sharing information, such as welfare applications, with the tribe.
According to Four States, four states filed an amicus brief supporting the tribe’s position.
The Court noted that Public Law 280 gives California criminal jurisdiction over offenses involving Indians but does not apply to tribes themselves.
- [1] 58e9044c252431273dee-r1-542e0a5386dc5cdc.pdf, p. 1
- [2] 58e9044c252431273dee-r1-542e0a5386dc5cdc.pdf, p. 3
- [3] 58e9044c252431273dee-r1-542e0a5386dc5cdc.pdf, p. 31
- [4] 58e9044c252431273dee-r1-542e0a5386dc5cdc.pdf, p. 21
- [5] 58e9044c252431273dee-r1-542e0a5386dc5cdc.pdf, p. 43
- [6] 58e9044c252431273dee-r1-542e0a5386dc5cdc.pdf, p. 38
Background and question before the Court
The Court described officers entering the tribe’s building, cutting the locks, and seizing the records.
According to Justice (unspecified), during oral argument a Justice asked whether the tribe offered to accept as consent the employees’ employment forms.
Justice Stevens asked whether the corporation owned anything.
Justice Kennedy asked about the application of Public Law 280.
Justice Scalia asked whether the tribe’s treasury was at issue.
What each side argues
Petitioner Position (Inyo County, California)
According to Petitioners, the petitioners seek a categorical rule that would make the tribe, its casinos, commercial businesses, and personal property immune from search warrants and subpoenas issued in connection with criminal investigations.
According to Kirby, the petitioner asserts that, under the Sixth Amendment, the State must provide compulsory process to obtain exculpatory evidence.
Respondent Position (Paiute‑Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community)
According to Reid Peyton Chambers, the tribe argues that tribal sovereign immunity, the principle that states may not infringe the tribe’s right to self‑government, and the absence of a congressional act authorizing the warrant bar the search warrant.
What happened at oral argument
Oral argument took place on March 31, 2003 at 10:16 a.m.
According to Justice (unspecified), a Justice asked whether the tribe offered to accept as consent the employees’ employment forms.
Justice Stevens asked whether the corporation owned anything.
Justice Kennedy asked about the application of Public Law 280.
Justice Scalia asked whether the tribe’s treasury was at issue.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 58e9044c252431273dee-r1-542e0a5386dc5cdc.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 20, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.